Reasonable Gun Control

This is a discussion on Reasonable Gun Control within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by PaulJ
The problem I am having, and the reason I started this thread, is that I for example will not join the ...

The problem I am having, and the reason I started this thread, is that I for example will not join the NRA. I think what we need is an open an honest discussion of gun rights and responsibilities.

Guns do not have rights. People do. Secondly, i think this forum provides for the open and honest discussion of gun laws. The problem is, the other side refuses to acknowledge facts and uses emotion and questionable statistics to make their point.

Originally Posted by PaulJ

If you look at any right provided by the constitution, it is controlled by laws.

The U.S. Constitution does not provide rights. It guarentees rights and (is supposed to) limit government.

Originally Posted by PaulJ

The 2nd. amendment should not be any different. As you have a right to carry, so I have a right to walk into Walmart without being afraid that a new rightful but untrained gun owner is practicing quick draws while enjoying his Nachos.

Brandishing a firearm as you have described is already against the law. So what's your deal?

Originally Posted by PaulJ

If you think its a good idea for everybody to carry, wouldn't it be a good idea for everybody to understand gun safety?

I do not believe it is a good idea for everybody to carry. I believe everyone should have the choice to carry or not. Like any other tool (like a table saw), one should read the instructions. Someone who refuses to learn and follow the law and proper gun safety should suffer the consequences. There is nothing preventing me from buying an impact drill--should Home Depot provide me training, or should I read the instructions?

Originally Posted by PaulJ

the US does have laws regulating birth control / abortion.

But do you have to go through mandatory training to make babies?

Originally Posted by PaulJ

I agree on the politician. As far as the police officer (or someone else mentioned military) goes: Are you willing to go thorugh the same training and qualify once a year?

I think the training should be available to the public, but not required.

There are some limits already established for driving. Why not take the same limit? Keeps things simple and the limits used for driving are well established.

OK.

Originally Posted by PaulJ

or being of a certain age to vote?

See U.S. Constitution, 26th Amendment.

Originally Posted by PaulJ

Rights are regularly regulated in order to avoid conflicts with the rights of others.

The problem is, the vocal minority determines what the majority should do. Your "right" to not have guns in schools (and other gun-free zones) infringes on my right to keep and bear arms in school. So here you have "reasonable" gun control, yet, shootings still happen in schools (and other gun-free zones). What about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? (see Declaration of Independence)

Originally Posted by PaulJ

Do you vote for a politician, even if the particular person does not allow you to attend their rally armed?

Personal choice who I vote for. The question is, why should I trust the politician with my vote if he doesn't trust me to exercise ALL of my rights, but only the ones he/she agrees with?

semantic isn't an argument. I call it gun control. You may call it concealed carry control.

Originally Posted by SIGguy229

Brandishing a firearm as you have described is already against the law. So what's your deal?

This was in response to the need for training.

I live in Florida, and do see Florida as a "model". But the emotional arguments made against gun control in this forum are used against gun owner ship. For example, the refusal to accept mandatory training will feed the fear mongering. Florida for example is quite open in accepting training provided by other states, armed forces and so on.

semantic isn't an argument. I call it gun control. You may call it concealed carry control.

The intent is to control criminal behavior, yet, the only person who is impacted is the legal gun owner/purchaser. It is about control.

Originally Posted by PaulJ

I live in Florida, and do see Florida as a "model". But the emotional arguments made against gun control in this forum are used against gun owner ship. For example, the refusal to accept mandatory training will feed the fear mongering. Florida for example is quite open in accepting training provided by other states, armed forces and so on.

You stand where you sit.

Try Vermont or Alaska--how many mass shootings have there been there? no permit, no training required.

Also, look at VA. The VA Tech incident could have been prevented had the school administration used all of the law available to them, versus using the Cliff notes. Also the University's policies (not state law) prohibited students, staff, and faculty from carrying a firearm, thereby making it a criminal empowerment zone (aka GFZ).

Gun Control means using both hands........okay, enough bumper sticker humor........RIGHTS are given by God...I have no problem with Government asking that those who wish to purchase are law abiding citizens of age. If you can join the army and haven't been to jail, own a gun. As far as knowledge of the firearm.....personal responsibility is something society has been lacking lately. I will guarantee that if you are at a range or club and point your gun at someone, people will definitely explain things to you. Either verbally or by doing the same.

Sigguy has already responded much better than I could, but I would also ask this about your convicted felon statement:

What about them? If they're so dangerous as to fear allowing them to keep and potentially bear arms ...why then pray tell are they out on the street free to roam? Fix the root issues. Don't keep adding more insanity to the asylum.

It doesn't take much in this day and age to become a convicted felon...and have nothing to do with being dangerous or murderous or anything else of the sort...Folks like Martha Stewart being case in point. She sold her stocks based on insider info in order to avoid a loss. Not exactly a danger to society. Yet she is a "convicted felon" that now is denied her right to defend her own life.

"Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."

Everyone get to own a gun...do something stupid with it...you pay the price...a heavy price...

Gun laws only effect honest people...making more of them (gun laws) has no effect on the criminal...

Do I think gun owners should take pistol SD courses? Yes!
But why should gun owners be FORCED to train?...you don't force criminals to train...the individual makes the choice, not another law stating so...

States with more intensive training requirements (there will be some) would still be reasonable, provided they covered the difference and their requirements were not prohibitive.

Congress including annual requalifications (see "well-regulated" comment above), provided they aren't prohibitive and are publicly funded if state-sponsored and not privately-sponsored.

States with more intensive requalifications (there will be some) would still be reasonable, provided they covered the difference and the requalifications were not prohitibive.

I'm sure there are other examples that I can't bring to mind right now, but you get the idea. If it's not prohibitive of one's right to keep and bear arms, it's not unconstitutional. Much of what exists is prohibitive, either directly or indirectly, some of it even accidentally (meant not to be but turned out to be).

-B

Last edited by BAC; June 4th, 2008 at 01:43 AM.
Reason: Langauage and deletion of state-specific contents

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
Ronald Reagan